Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

gzipped_tar writes "A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that a public high school teacher in Mission Viejo, California may not be sued for making hostile remarks about religion in his classroom. The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a student charging that the teacher's hostile remarks about creationism and religious faith violated a First Amendment mandate that the government remain neutral in matters of religion. A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the lawsuit must be thrown out of court because the teacher was entitled to immunity."

So if a teacher came out in favor of creationism, a radical form, let's say one that proclaimed blacks, asians, and all other non-whites as descendants of evil evil Cain, would it be possible to sue that teacher?

Clearly and obviously Adam and Eve never existed and this should be taught to any young person as truth is always preferable to falsehoods, but what about someone promoting a falsehood?

Bimbo Newton Crosby. We had a truly wonderful history teacher, right in the middle of the bible belt, that actually had students WANTING to learn American history! How did he do that? Because he said like six degrees EVERYTHING in American history can be traced forwards or backwards to Woodstock in under 6 steps. to him Woodstock was a watershed moment and all us kids worked our ass off trying to stump him, never did.

So what happened? At the end of the semester as a consolation prize after our tests (highest scores ever for that class in that school BTW) he played us the entire Woodstock concert...and was promptly fired for showing a movie that promoted sex and drugs to HS students.

So everything went back to the way it was, scores sucked in american history because most of the guys were blowing joints in the parking lot before class and were sleeping through most of it, just another wasted class in another wasted day in the sausage factory. Like George Carlin said they don't want those that can think, they want worker drones.

You have no idea whether I am attempting to discredit the decision, or their decisions. I didn't say whether I approved of it or not, or whether the Supreme Court would be right to reverse it or not. I did say that the results of a lawsuit on this issue would depend on the remarks made by the teacher--i.e. the fact-pattern--and the judge or panel presiding over or reviewing the case. I did not say that it was bad to be liberal, in this case or any other. You seem to have assumed that liberal meant somet

He didn't say they were overworked. He said it's one of the largest circuits because it has about 20% of the US population in it. More population = more cases = more reversals. But the percentage of reversals is the same as elsewhere.

Now tell me, is it factually correct, regardless of the reasons you just illustrated, to say that the 9th circuit court has the most reversals of any district in the US court system? If not, show me any other district that has more reversals on a regular basis.

Note, that the op, as well as I, am talking about rulings being over turned by district, not as a percentage of case load or anything of the sorts. You see, two separate things are being

Not understanding basic math or other facts about the world seems to be a common whichever-wing-I-don't-subscribe-to talking point. On the other hand, I'm quite happy you committed such an error here as it means I can now safely skip any of your future posts without worrying about missing anything intelligent.

If you RTFA, the case you are describing was already judged by the same court. A biology teacher did want to teach about creationism and this was refused by the court.

"In the 1994 case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that religious neutrality required that the biology teacher’s positive views of religious ideas must be excluded from public school instruction. But in 2011, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the history teacher’s hostile views of religion and faith must be permitted to protect the “robust exchange of ideas in education.”"

This ruling is actually a little more subtle than that. They ruled that the *teacher* can't be sued since the courts haven't decided if criticizing creationism is illegal or not. We've well established a legal precedent that teachers can't pray or teach religion. So the court threw the lawsuit out on the grounds that you can't sue someone for doing something the courts haven't established is illegal. Hence immunity. If the students had brought the case against the school and made it about policy (e.g. to change the curriculum) instead of against an individual then they could establish a precedent legally that criticizing religion is or is not a violation of the establishment clause.

This case establishes no legal precedent. Quite the opposite this case only establishes that there is no accepted legal precedent upon which to judge this case therefore the default ruling is to rule in favor of the defendant.

Now that the pedantics are out of the way... Even if they had ruled this is the correct ruling. Advancing *a* religion which is what was going on in 1994 is one thing. Criticizing the logic (using logic) of a religious believer is not to say that Christianity is false or that Atheism is true--it's criticizing a single logical argument. Similarly a creationist could criticize scientific theories if they are logically unsound without advancing creationism. When you dismantle bad arguments for any position you're strengthening it not denigrating it. Which is EXACTLY the argument that the teacher was making. When you criticize evolution you strengthen it by finding its weaknesses and eliminating them or solving them. When you criticize creationism you're "attacking someone's beliefs" and they double down to defend the position regardless if it's sound or not. That's not an attack on religion, that's an attack on narrow minded ideologues who reject learning. And those ideologues are an insult to religious thought.

If a student said "I know God exists because the bible tells me so." It's not promoting atheism to point out the believer's logical fallacy. In fact that's a huge part of philosophy and theology *WITHIN* a faith.

Atheism does get an unfair leg up on religion since it's by definition a non-establishment. In spite of the efforts to reclassify it as an equivalent belief system by the religious it depends on no beliefs of its own. Atheism ultimately is the argument that "I haven't heard a sound argument for a God from anyone so I maintain the default position of nothing on the subject." In fact Atheists are the least atheistic of all belief systems. As an atheist I will say "None of the 8 billion theories on God seem to hold any water or have sufficient proof." As a Christian I will say "There is one true God and *all other possible views* of God are therefore untrue"

The atheist rejects a finite number of belief systems as having insufficient evidence. Most theists reject an infinite number of belief systems other than the one.

The fact that every less argument for God gets you one step closer to Atheism does not logically follow that discrediting bad arguments for God is advancing Atheism. My dad is a Christian PhD Theologian and I am an atheist. We more often agree in debates than with most lay people. Why? Because most of the arguments that the religious advance have been rejected by theologians and philosophers for centuries as "nonsense".

Most people's faith and religion today is largely based on horribly outdated and overly simplistic arguments that are logical and philosophical sink holes of nonsense. Whether it's an atheist or a theologian who is dismissing such nonsense it's good for religion and Atheism that the old (in this court case's instance more than 1500 year old) logical fallacies are removed from public discourse.

It's not denigrating to religion to force its adherents to use sound arguments and logic for their positions. It *IS* denigrating to religion for idiots and assholes to use the cloak of religion to try and conceal their own stupidity and aversion to education. It makes the religious look stupid and lazy.

Atheism ultimately is the argument that "I haven't heard a sound argument for a God from anyone so I maintain the default position of nothing on the subject."

Actually, that's the agnostic position - "There's not enough data for a rational determination of the existence of God, therefore the I hold no opinion as to whether God exists or not". Atheism is a positive assertion of the non-existence of God.

So basically what we have here is the schools mandating teachers only teach the official State religion.

You have a sad, strange definition of religion, my friend.

Faith is belief without evidence. Religion is based on faith. Religion can't answer the great questions about life, the universe, and everything, because religion is indistinguishable from making shit up.

Evolution is an area of scientific study, with much experimental support. Next to gravity, it is the best-supported theory in science. And, it is understood to a greater degree than gravity.

The teaching of evolution is not the teaching of religion, but the teaching of science. Attempting to conflate the two is just plain silly. Any argument based on the conflation of the two (such as your weird rant about "Political correctness," which is just code for, "I want to be racist/sexist/homophobic without feeling guilty") is therefore unsupported, and quite likely just plain wrong.

Mischaracterizations aside, one of these ideas is supported by multiple lines of evidence (the cosmic microwave background radiation, observable expansion of the universe, etc.) the other is supported by a 2000-year (give or take) idea.

And when science doesn't know the answer that is what science says: we don't know.

When religion doesn't know what the answer is it just makes stuff up. Then the truly faithful sticks to this made up stuff no matter what the evidence. Occasionally when there is overwhelming evidence religious views are modified, but it is a slow painful process.

Science does a better job of answering the big questions because it is seeking the truth, not making up its mind a priori. The scientific method is the best method we have for seeking true answers to questions about the actual universe as it really is, not how we wish it was. Religion is not as good at answering any question about the actual, real universe, because its conjectures are just stories made up by men who were woefully uneducated by our current standards. Science constantly seeks to test its theories, broaden its knowledge, and is quite happy to admit when it was wrong or partially right. Religion has none of these desirable features.

This is a logical fallacy. To consider the argument, you have to presume that there is a God capable of building a human being from dust, which God also created first. The argument that God must have made Eve to be a clone assumes that God didn't create something new in the process, which is kind of contrary to the assumption of a Creator.

Certainly, if the God described in the creation story exists as described, then creating whole genomes from scratch is pretty much old hat by the time Eve is created. To say that they "must" be clones would be an odd assumption, particularly given the rest of the story. Further, the story details the creation of the first man and woman but at no point is it stated that they were the only humans he created. Some people believe that, perhaps many, but it simply isn't in the traditional story, and interestingly when their sons head out into the world, they meet up with other people, with admittedly could have been the product of incest and lives long enough to consider a couple of centuries to be middle aged, but more reasonably could be taken as more humans created whose creation stories aren't recorded.

Ancestry is very important to many prophesies and was very important to the religion of the Jews at the time of Jesus Christ. Adam and Eve provide a traceable lineage from God's hand and plan all the way to Jesus Christ, but it doesn't exclude the possibility that there were many other people created along the way. Genetics studies actually make the case that all living human beings share the heritage of no more than a few thousand individuals. (Look up the Toba event.)

None of this proves that God created Adam and Eve first or that the story is true at all, none of it proves that God did anything or that God exists. If you prefer another explanation of the facts, that's certainly something that (IMHO) society should protect as a liberty. I'm absolutely in favour of presenting logical reasons for what you believe, regardless of whether they happen to agree with my own or not. The only reason I'm responding to the parent is to point out that saying "God must have created a clone" is misleadingly simplistic.

Yes, you can sue for that. That has been well established. TFA actually mentions such a case from 1994.

The misleading thing here is that when people read that a teacher "may not be sued for making hostile remarks about religion" one assumes that the remarks were actually hostile. The court basically said that the teacher has no reason to believe that what he said should be taken as hostile. The teacher, for his part, never mentioned a specific creationist theory, but rather said this:

Aristotle argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense.... That’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic. The other possibility is, it’s always been there. Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic. All I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it.

And one more graph from the article:

Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

james corbett | 12-February-2011 at 12:09 pm |I’m Dr. Corbett. One thing readers should understand is that when my school-provided attorney made the decision to ask a judge rather than a judge decide the case, the law required that all the “facts” be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Chad). That meant that we could not challenge the validity of the recordings, which were heavily edited. It meant that we could not point out how each and every comment clearly related to the curriculum. I might add, Chad’s recording were in violation of California law.This case was never about religion. It was about a whiny little boy who admitted he didn’t do his homework and who’s helicopter parents intervened so often in school and on the water polo team that other students called him “princess.” Neither Chad, his parents nor his lawyers, the so called “Advocates for Faith and Freedom,” ever made an attempt to even talk to me or attempt to resolve the issues prior to filing a lawsuit. It is my opinion that the “Advocates” were far more interested in having a case they could use for fundraising than they were in dealing with the issues. They are a textbook example of exactly what I commented on in class, that some people use the faith of others to line their pockets with gold or to gain political power. I believe such use of religion is vastly more offensive than calling Biblical creation “superstitious, religious nonsense,” which is obviously true.”

The problem is that a scientific theory can only be displaced by another scientific theory. Creationism has been demonstrated to make no testable predictions. Therefore, it's not a scientific proposition.

And after a theory has been proven correct as often and as firmly as evolution, it becomes more and more likely it is the correct proposition.

More tellingly, though, is the reason people propose creationism. It's almost invariably because of their religious belief. That's not a good reason to challenge the validity of evolution. In fact, it's the stupidest reason there is.

I would say question it so you can find out the origin of some things. Being skeptical isn't ignorance. Being skeptical while promoting an opposing religious view is, though. You can be skeptical and still support evolution. After all, they're learning new stuff every day.

I am tired of religions making things "off limits" to debate and ridicule. Muslims have been, in the last decade or so, more vocally whiny about their religion, but that doesn't leave the Christians out... they're full of "persecution syndrome" as much as the Muslims.

I am a Christian who accepts the facts about evolution. I know the universe is very old, and I know the earth isn't 6000 years old. I know that creation didn't happen in 7 days (it's just a nice story to provide a "rest on the sabbath" reason...)

Galileo said it best. "The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go." It's not a science book... it's a morality book with some history and societal concepts for Hebrews in it. Does it make me a hypocrite? I suppose in both science and religion's view I am. But it works for me, and that's all that matters.

Science is science. Religion is religion. Free speech is guaranteed. That's what Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson need to figure out. There is no need to abandon science because you believe in God. (Or Allah, or whatever) There is no need to abandon religion because science is provable fact. Blindly following either is short-changing your innate ability to reason and question things (in order to learn, not to marginalize.) And it gives you ulcers if you take it too seriously. Life's short... have fun and be thankful you're not dead yet. (Who you thank is up to you....)

Did you miss the societal concepts (meaning I'm not a Hebrew) of the Old Testament? To me, the old testament consists of historical narratives, morality concepts, and life lessons (the Ark isn't about the flood, it's about doing what you know is right when people are mocking you...)

In your list, you've just laid out things that are in the Bible regarding the history of Israel. Whether or not you take that to mean that we should follow those tenets are another matter. I never said the Bible couldn't be abused... just like science is abused.

What you miss, or seem to, is that the central figure of the New Testament is pretty spot on as to how you should treat others. If you don't think so, that's fine. You don't have to. I am not here to promote religiosity.

I don't blindly follow religion... religion != Bible. There's a ton of great stuff in there and simply because there's stuff in there about early Hebrew culture, doesn't mean we should toss out the awesome stuff (Love God with all your heart, mind, and spirit, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.).... You're missing out.

> It is always possible to invent needless, unprovable elements for every subject.

In fact the teacher invented a needless, unprovable - that is, wrong, as my previous comment underlines - implication: "the universe has always existed (let's suppose it did), therefore no creator is necessary".

And, are you sure you need to carve out all needless things? every prediction and model made by science is based on the assumption that the laws modelling it will not change. The only reason for that assumption is th

If the teacher doesn't have any evidence support the story of Adam and Eve what with the serpent and all, then they aren't teaching, they're doing missionary work and should be fired if they keep up with it. I'm not sure what the specific comments are, but creationism has no place in scientific inquiry other than as a cautionary tale as to why one must be careful about getting the evidence right.

My reading on this is that the Court has essentially said "It does not matter at the moment whether the teacher was right or wrong in their actions. What matters at the moment is that filing a lawsuit against the teacher is the wrong approach."

The plaintiffs should have filed suit against the school, not the teacher. That is why the teacher has immunity. It is school policies that dictate what a teacher may or may not say in classroom; it is the school policies that the plaintiffs should be challenging. Teachers need to be protected against nuisance suits concerning school policies.

I agree, 1st grade science should be oriented around presenting evidence to debunk the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc.

1st grade science should not teach that, but what happens when people try to make Santology part of the 9th grade science syllabus? I can understand teachers not wanting to teach it, but when a student asks why it is not being taught should they be able to discuss the reasons in class?

That would be called a 'theology class', not a Science class. There is a reason that we've settled on Evolution.

1st grade science should not teach that, but what happens when people try to make Santology part of the 9th grade science syllabus? I can understand teachers not wanting to teach it, but when a student asks why it is not being taught should they be able to discuss the reasons in class?

TFA actually makes a very good statement about this. Scientists have spent countless years trying to disprove everything about Evolution and to date, there have been no big showstoppers to prove it wrong. It is not 100 percent complete, but it's on pretty solid ground. 'Creationists' have spent years trying to 'prove' their theory to everyone else, simply by claiming that the current winning theory is wrong because it's incomplete or a 'theory' as if that's somehow a bad word.

Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

It's a telling argument. Creationists don't even try to disprove their theory via scientific study. It's actually impossible to do since by it's very nature, there is no proof. They instead spend all of their time claiming the preeminent theory is all wrong because it's still a 'theory' which in itself is just laughable. I hate to break it to them but most scientific principles are theory until something better comes along. If/when something better comes along, it will be the new theory, but to date, nothing better has come along, and it's very likely that evolution is the winning bet.

IAALAOBM (I Am A Licensed And Ordained Baptist Minister) and I have to say that I agree with you. I find it amazing that so many people of faith don't seem to understand what faith really is.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb. 11:1)

"things not seen" Faith is not science nor can it be. If we proved everything in the bible through science there would be no faith. The miraculous should be miraculous. For instance, if the crossing of the red sea can be explained by naturalistic processes then all you have done is removed the need for God. Many people who claim to be of faith want science to explain the miracles of the bible so that it would strengthen their faith. Many people who post on this forum want the same thing but only because they think it would disprove, or at least make it less likely, that God exist. The simple truth is that people of faith need to come to realize that science is not bad, but science can not and never will prove God's existence. To prove "God" scientist would have to test and experiment on God. You would have to, in a manner of speaking, put God in a test tube.

Of all the miracles of the bible the second greatest is with out a doubt the creation of everything. Science will do what it does, and try to explain our existence through what is seen. This means that science will and must conclude that the most likely naturalistic process is the best explanation for our existence.

As a person of faith I find it truly remarkable that God created this universe in an orderly fashion and gave us such great intellects that we can study, test, experience, and learn about the world around us.

An elegant way you put that if I do say so myself. The miraculous would simply be mundane. Who's to say that God didn't create it, but until it can be proven, it's just a hypothesis, not a theory. Basically an unproven idea. Perfectly acceptable for a theology class, or possibly a history class to discuss creationism, but not as a science topic.

Unfortunately, Religion (meant in a general sense, although aimed unfortunately at Christianity in this case), is trying to force it's way into government in a way the founding fathers specifically tried to avoid. They seem to crave a Christian 'state'. A state sponsored religion without realizing the very thing they are fighting for, would invalidate or deny that same choice in others. Ironically the very reason for the middle east and it's terror attacks on the US are founded in a theocracy. They very thing social conservatives claim to be fighting, they would put in place here.

Separation of Church and State as many like to call it, isn't about protecting the government from the people and whatever religion they choose (or don't choose), but rather it's about protecting the people from the government. Saddening and at times frustrating that these people simply don't see that.

Some times I'm amazed at the wisdom the founding fathers have shown. To think of the foresight that went into the document, and how well the Constitution has held up, even hundreds of years later is amazing if you think about it.

Your link regarding "polystrate" fossils contains the answer. I don't see anything complicated about it taking different amount of times to collect sediment compared to turning that sediment into rock. There is NO evidence of a world wide flood.

Your paragraph regarding evolution shows such a complete ignorance of how evolution works, and biology in general, that I can only recommend you visit your local library. Mount Improbable or the Blind Watchmaker are both good books that give the basics of evolutio

I think your post deserves a serious answer, so I'm wasting the moderation points I've spent in this discussion.

Without a flood how do you explain these polystrate fossils [wikipedia.org]. If each layer of rock took millions of years to lay down then why is the fossil present in more than one layer.

You're right, those fossils may have been caused by a flood. There is, however, no reason to believe there was a world-wide flood. If there were, ALL fossil strata would look like that - fossils being jumbled together randomly would be the rule, not the exception.

Even Leonardo da Vinci noted, back in the 15th century, that the shells you can find high up in the mountains were not jumbled together randomly, as if carried there by a flood, but layered neatly, as if the mountain had once laid at the bottom of an ocean and then slowly risen up.

Even if the theory of evolution turns out to be false, the literal biblical account still doesn't hold up to the facts. And why should it? After all, Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God, not written by God.

In this particular case, I generally agree with the specifics as I am sympathetic to the notion that creationism is indeed superstitious nonsense. But I have to wonder and worry a little about where this can go.

Do I worry that science teachers who are sympathetic to creationism will somehow warp the young minds of students? Actually, no. By the time they reach a science class, they just about have their minds made up on the topic. I do worry, however, what the next thing will be to follow will be. Afte

Wait a minute. A court opens the door to religion-bashing teachers telling their students how stupid they are for believing in God, and you're worried that the religious people of the country will just get worse? Wow, what a warped perspective.

Radical populations have a long and storied history of getting violent when a law they don't like passes. Would you like me to start with the KKK or the anti-abortionism movement? I assume you've never had to deal with extremists face-to-face for very long. This really shouldn't surprise you one bit.

I had a Biology teacher that went out of her way to tell us all that the state mandated teachings on evolution were crap and that if she had a choice she wouldn't teach it at all, then proceeded to tell us the "real truth" about where we came from, cracked the bible she carried with her everywhere she went, and proceeded to spend a week on teaching us Creationism, complete with quizzes to make sure we'd properly absorbed the knowledge. She did everything she could to gloss over evolution.

That the US constitution is a great boon to the country, yet at the same time being a huge albatross around its neck. FFS suing someone because they expressed an opinion in an arena where they may/may not be allowed to have an opinion, instead of growing a pair, sucking it up and realizing that not everyone agrees with you. And yes I am aware of the protections that the constitution grants, but in this case a lawsuit seems overkill.

I am not that surprised that the case occurred. I can see why people might be annoyed at being compelled to pay the salary of somebody who denigrates their beliefs, and there's a difference between freely expressing a personal opinion vs one's responsibilities in acting as an agent/employee of the state. But, like the judge said, it is important for education to challenge beliefs, especially when known facts contract those beliefs.

I believe in evidence. If we find hard evidence of creation, I'm cool with it.

Science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
Ill spin on a fucking dime
Ill be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
Its a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory in it!
And while its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo its had in it!
You show me that it works and ho

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a school is not a government institution, and the teacher is not a government employee, is he? So he can say whatever he wishes about religion, and still not invoke the "Church and State, separate!"-clause.

In Hungary, there's something called the National Curriculum, but that only specifies the rough topics and lays out a track to follow to the end of high school. Inside those topics, the teachers are free to subdivide their classes, and teach whatever they wish, since they aren

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a school is not a government institution, and the teacher is not a government employee, is he? So he can say whatever he wishes about religion, and still not invoke the "Church and State, separate!"-clause.

Yeah, actually it is a government institution. The difference is that this teacher was stating an opinion, religious types tend to claim they are telling the truth.

The establishment clause. Despite the religious right's attempt to make it appear impotent, the clause is pretty clear about the state's role in religion. It's effectively a separation of church and state clause.

TFA includes a shortened transcript of the teacher's comments, and it doesn't sound to me like he was criticizing religion per se. Rather, he was criticizing attempts by people to pose religion as science (such as intelligent design), by saying that the "logic" used to argue in favor of creationism is fundamentally flawed and nonscientific. And especially if intelligent design advocates continue to insist that their ideas be taught as science in a science classroom, then such criticisms should certainly be fair game in science classrooms.

At least from the transcript, it didn't seem like he was directly criticizing those who nevertheless believe in a creator as a matter of faith and not of science.

Indeed. Here's the transcript for reference for people who didn't RTFA:

"Aristotle... argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that's nonsense," Corbett said according to a transcript of his lecture. "I mean, that's what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, 'Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.' Faulty logic. Very faulty logic."

He continued: "The other possibility is, it's always been there.... Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic."

"All I'm saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it," the transcript says.

Corbett told his students that "real" scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. "Contrast that with creationists," he told his students. "They never try to disprove creationism. They're all running around trying to prove it. That's deduction. It's not science. Scientifically, it's nonsense."

He gets bonus points from me for including the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Yes, but his ignorance shows pretty clearly. He didn't explicitly state what he thought Aristotle said, but he seems to think Aristotle said that god created the universe. Aristotle thought the universe was eternal, not that it had been created or brought into existence by some god. In fact he argues that neither time nor motion can have a beginning because of what they are. His arguments for the existence of god were, in fact, based on this premise. It would really be nice if people who brought up ancient philosophers actually bothered reading and understanding them for once.

That teacher sounds like an imbecile, and ought to be sued on principle. His counter-argument is for a steady state universe? Wasn't that debunked like, a century ago? And then re-debunked when morons like this guy tried to bring it back by saying that a constant stream of matter was being created from nowhere at just the right rate to keep the universe expanding forever?

He sounds like the worst kind of atheist. The sort that knows absolutely jack shit about philosophy or logic, except what he picked up

Who cares if the teacher was criticising religion or not. Individual opinion of people who work for the government is not the same as government policy.

Here is the part of the first amendment of the US constitution that is pertinent to the case:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Nope, doesn't say "government workers have to have neutral attitudes towards religion". Members of government, let alone government workers, in the US can be as rapidly pro or anti religious as they like and they won't break the first amendment unless they start making policy that establishes religion or prevents the free exercise thereof.

If the nutjob who sued can't even understand what the first amendment protects, they sure as hell aren't going to distinguish between those who say creationism isn't a science (I say that and I am an evangelical Christian) and straight out attacks against religion.

P.S. I am an Australian and I find it sad that I know more about the US constitution than most Americans and the talking heads on TV.

Individual opinion of people who work for the government is not the same as government policy.

It is, and must be, official government policy that individuals working for them, especially in a position of educating children, stay out of religious matters. Students are ordered to go to school and told to believe everything that the teacher tells them. What the individual says in that context has a lot of force, more than ordinary first amendment right to free speech.

From what I read in that transcript, the teacher is out of line. A generous reading can exonerate the teacher from actually denying the

He points out nonsensical logic used to justify the existence of god. Even cursory reading of Christian theologians indicates that calling out people on nonsense is an established scholarly tradition--even among the orthodox. And often, of course, the contest is for who will be orthodox. For example, the contest between Augustine and Pelagius (Augustine won), or Luther and All Comers (title contested). And saying that deductive reasoning isn't science is a fair statement. I suspect the reason this teacher is out of line is that you can infer that he is an atheist. But that is his business. And, frankly, adults should give young people enough information to infer such things. That's how most children of backward parents learn that atheists, socialists, Jews, and homosexuals don't actually eat babies in the name of their Dark Lord Satan.

I am a lawyer, and about a third of my cases are representing state employees, and about a third of those involve cases with a "clearly established" defense, though I practice mostly in the Fourth Circuit, not the Ninth.

The "clearly established" standard is a way for courts to keep these kinds of suits from dinging innocent state employees. Basically, not only does the employee have to violate someone's right, but it has to have been pretty much unreasonable for the employee to think ze wasn't violating that right. Here, in fact, the panel didn't even hold that the kid had a right not to have this stuff said to him. So this case won't be precedent for future cases to reach back and say, "Well, as of the time the Corbett opinion was issued, the right not to have a teacher make fun of your religious beliefs was clearly established."

There are several other possible doctrines for protecting an employee in such a situation, and they're all salutary.

So we have to assume if a teacher or football coach or principal leads a class, football team or entire school in prayer that person would be similarly entitled to immunity?

Interesting quote from TFA:

In the 1994 case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that religious neutrality required that the biology teacher’s positive views of religious ideas must be excluded from public school instruction. But in 2011, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the history teacher’s hostile views of religion and faith must be permitted to protect the “robust exchange of ideas in education.”

It looks like the Ninth Circuit is hostile to religion and faith. They clearly didn't get that from the First Amendment.

I can see the sense in having a disparity there. Leading a school or whatever in prayer is clearly going in favour of one particular religion, while views critical of religion as a whole do not exclude anyone.

Seems to me, from the brief notes in TFA, that the judge suggested it was ok to say that creationists were completely failing to follow scientific principles in claiming their position was correct. The teacher didn't directly attack religion, just the absurd methodology of the religious folks in this case.

The fact that there may not have been a previous decision to warn the teacher that this was unacceptable behavior doesn't mean that htis behavior was acceptable, and the court shouldn't have ducked the issue in this way. Moreover, when the issue has been teacher who were presenting their religious views rather than their atheistic views, the 9th circuit has not ducked the issue in this way.
The "giant spaghetti monster" line that the teacher used is not a neutral symbol, but a deliberate and overt attack

“We are aware of no prior case holding that a teacher violated the establishment clause by appearing critical of religion during class lectures, nor any case with sufficiently similar facts to give a teacher ‘fair warning’ that such conduct was unlawful"

I am not a judge, but I'm thinking it's their opportunity and their job to be the first ruling in a case like this. Someone has to establish precedent.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a student charging that the teacherâ(TM)s hostile remarks about creationism and religious faith violated a First Amendment mandate that the government remain neutral in matters of religion.

1. Yes, if the school is public then the salary of the teacher is paid from taxes, however it's not necessary that the taxes are Federal in nature, though of-course States cannot dismiss parts of US Constitution as it stands (but they can and need to challenge the federal government that it is not following the US Constitution, but that's a different topic).

2. No, even if the teacher was clearly a government representative, his remarks do not violate anything in the Constitution. His remarks are in fact his

So is creationism science, or is it religion?I thought that creationists argued that their ideas were "scientific" or was that the intelligent designers?Anyway, either it's a religion, the basis for the creationists' case here, and would therefore have no place in a proper education system to begin with,or creationism is a science, giving it a place in the education system but allowing teacher to have & express a negative opinion about it.This seems the kind of circular reasoning we've come to expect from creationists and intteligent design proponents, in yet another interesting new form.

So is creationism science, or is it religion?I thought that creationists argued that their ideas were "scientific" or was that the intelligent designers?

It's a religious belief.

There was once a Creation Science movement (in the 1980s, IIRC), which tried to use real science to support the modern interpretations of the myths in Genesis, but since (unlike ID) they mostly tried to be honest with it, it failed - the evidence doesn't support biblical myths - and thus the movement died.

She works for the government. She should neither disparage nor encourage religious viewpoints. Preferably, she should not discuss the matter of religion at all. As for creationism, it's not science (i.e. not a falsifiable theory backed by evidence) and has no place in a public classroom. The right answer is, "don't discuss it there."

Mythic explanations for creation are a dime a dozen and popular ones can be heard every Sunday in the USA. Virtually all children are exposed to them. Some will recover. Others

The science teachers should bash religion all the want. Send your kids to church to learn mythology; or allow the humanities teachers to discuss religions equally.

The constitution is against promotion of a religion -- NO pushing of religion. period. Keep religion out of government is the whole point. (remember, the king of England was heavily connected to religion...) Somebody making comments against any of the many idiocies of our primitive ancient (older than mid-evil) beliefs is not violating this at all! Heresy could be a crime if if it wasn't for the prohibition of religion in government. Heresy includes a lot of science, logic, philosophy etc.

Furthermore, my point is that government can bash all religion equally without promoting any single one of them; some could argue that the banning of religion is possible to a degree but I'm not going there (human sacrifices and many other religious practices are illegal and its constitutional.) Non-religion is not a religion. So you are not promoting 1 religion over the others if you are "attacking" them all fairly.

"FREE PRESS" but we tax them... That severely limits the press of today where the real news comes from papers who are going broke. Religions, they don't get taxed yet they get less empowerment in the constitution than the press does.

After RTFS, I get the impression that the teacher said something like "Creationism is false. Creationism is garbage."
After RTFA, I realize the teacher basically said "creationists rarely use scientific arguments to support their belief."
Long live exaggerated and misleading Slashdot summaries.

If you have to ask the question then you don't understand the real issue.

Religious belief is 100% completely unprovable and relies on "faith" and good feelings as confirmation instead of tests and observation. (I would be wrong but is there a "god test" that can be performed to prove the existence?)

Religious people see this as "two sides opposing" because "everyone believes in something." That is also ridiculous. People who want to know and understand seek to learn by evidence, testing and experimentation. Religion offers none of this. In the end, religion fosters an end of knowledge in favor of belief. If there are two opposing sides of the issue, it is "persuit of knowledge" vs "belief." But no one on the religious side wants to admit that is the truth.

"Aristotle... argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course thatâ(TM)s nonsense,â Corbett said according to a transcript of his lecture. âoeI mean, thatâ(TM)s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, âWell, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.â(TM) Faulty logic. Very faulty logic.â

Why is it that teaching against religion is protected speech, but if the teacher were to favor religion then that is not protected?

It is an interesting question. If you look at the transcript, you will see that what was said did stay within the bounds of science, in that there was no statement that there was no God; just that there is no scientific proof of creationism and that the methodology of creationists does not meet scientific standards. He then continued to talk about the history of the dispute about teaching creationism in schools.

What is bizarre is that this is exactly what the creationists want - to teach the controversy [wikipedia.org]. The trouble is that if you start asking scientifically minded people to do this then you are bound to end up with them teaching the flaws in creationism.

No, science is reliable. That is a very different thing than "perfect".

but one new fact could totally change everything scientifically

Correct. That is the very foundation of science, and that why it is so reliable. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists constantly checking the existing evidence against established science, and constantly searching for new evidence to further support or challenge established science, and when necessary updating established science to reflect that new evidence.

That only works if religion doesn't actively attack science. Religious organisations have attempted to prevent evolution being taught because it conflicts with a story written 2000 years ago. When they couldn't stop it, they tried to start teaching their stories as facts in schools. When Creationism was rejected, they cynically made up a "science" so that they could force that into schools.

Intelligent Design is a very anti-science topic. By definition it cannot prove any of its claims, so it uses negative arguments attacking evolution. It claims that some things cannot be explained by science, so therefore ID is right. It claims that missing links prove evolution is wrong (and if a missing link is found, then they just move the goalposts and find another missing link).

It claims that some organisms (or parts of them - eg eyes) are so complicated that they couldn't possibly evolve, despite scientists being able to show fossil evidence of precursors to those organisms.

And finally, I didn't see anything attacking religion in the transcript so this whole argument is moot.

He should focus less on "being right" and more on serving his students.

The best way to serve his students would be to teach them. Why should stop doing that just because they come to class with pre-conceived ideas.

> Who are saying that "the debate is settled"? Certainly not scientists,

I agree that by any sensible definition of 'science' they aren't. Science isn't decided by a vote. No matter how popular or beautiful a theory is, it must fall to ONE stubborn fact or it isn't science anymore. But by the circular logic that prevails today 'climate scientist' is defined as those who study climate change and man's destruction of the climate. Anyone who doesn't believe in AGW is thus declared to NOT be a climate sci

Creationism is an infectious idea that has the potential to do a great deal of damage amongst the less educated. The last thing the United States needs is public resistance to fundamental research. If left to their own devices and accommodated instead of confronted, the supporters of this ideology could (and would) push the US back to before the Renaissance. It's happened before [wikipedia.org].

Of course, that being said, the Chinese would pick up the slack (and arguably already have), but their government is fantastically

God could have created the universe with an infinite past; just because God created the universe doesn't mean that there has to be a 'starting point' in time which us humans can point to as 'creation'. God is bigger than time, so to speak.

The belief the teacher ridiculed isn't the belief in creationism, but the belief that creationism is science. The teacher made no comment on the value of faith whatsoever, only that creationism is faith, not science. Complete with an explanation of what that means. Creationists look for proof that creationism is true, and scientists look for proof that evolution ISN'T. If a student expressed outrage at the teaching of rainfall because it contradicts the teaching of their church, would it be equally wrong to explain that "the rain is God's tears" isn't scientific? How should the teacher proceed if a student objects to teaching science? Clearly you oppose explaining how faith and fact are different, so what do you do? Ignore the student? Cancel class on account of faith? Or what? How do you handle it, if you aren't allowed to address it?

You're correct, it's not right for a teacher to outright say "God Does[not] Exist". However, it is perfectly acceptable for a teacher, especially a science teacher in a science classroom, to say "There is no scientific evidence that God exists". I would bet that even a lot of theologians would agree with that statement. Science and faith should not be put together, but at the same time, there is no reason why a belief in one has to preclude a belief in the other.

Johny, probably the son of somebody in the hate group AFA, was upset because the teacher didn't agree with his mommy and daddy so tax payers had to throw a bunch of money away in courts to make Johny feel good? Are spoiled evangelical kids so important we have to pay for their tantrums?

Yes, apparently the kid was so spoiled that his classmates called him "princess".

I’m Dr. Corbett. One thing readers should understand is that when my school-provided attorney made the decision to ask a judge rather than a judge decide the case, the law required that all the “facts” be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Chad). That meant that we could not challenge the validity of the recordings, which were heavily edited. It meant that we could not point out how each and every comment clearly related to the curriculum. I might add, Chad’s recording were in violation of California law.This case was never about religion. It was about a whiny little boy who admitted he didn’t do his homework and who’s helicopter parents intervened so often in school and on the water polo team that other students called him “princess.” Neither Chad, his parents nor his lawyers, the so called “Advocates for Faith and Freedom,” ever made an attempt to even talk to me or attempt to resolve the issues prior to filing a lawsuit. It is my opinion that the “Advocates” were far more interested in having a case they could use for fundraising than they were in dealing with the issues. They are a textbook example of exactly what I commented on in class, that some people use the faith of others to line their pockets with gold or to gain political power. I believe such use of religion is vastly more offensive than calling Biblical creation “superstitious, religious nonsense,” which is obviously true.”